很简单:表达式的值是一个值，而语句不是。

表达式可以求值得到一个值，而语句不返回值(它们是void类型)。

当然，函数调用表达式也可以被视为语句，但除非执行环境有一个特殊的内置变量来保存返回值，否则无法检索它。

面向语句的语言要求所有过程都是语句列表。面向表达式的语言，可能是所有的函数式语言，都是表达式的列表，或者在LISP的情况下，是一个表示表达式列表的长s表达式。

尽管这两种类型都可以组合，但只要类型匹配，大多数表达式都可以任意组合。每种类型的语句都有自己的方式来组合其他语句，如果它们可以做到这一切的话。Foreach和if语句要么要求单个语句，要么要求所有子语句一个接一个地放入语句块中，除非子语句允许它们自己的子语句。

语句还可以包括表达式，而表达式实际上不包括任何语句。不过，lambda表达式是一个例外，它表示一个函数，因此可以包括函数可以包含的任何东西，除非语言只允许有限的lambdas，比如Python的单表达式lambdas。

在基于表达式的语言中，你所需要的只是一个函数的单个表达式，因为所有的控制结构都返回一个值(其中很多返回NIL)。不需要return语句，因为函数中最后求值的表达式就是返回值。

表达式是返回值的东西，而语句则不是。

例子:

1 + 2 * 4 * foo.bar()     //Expression
foo.voidFunc(1);          //Statement

两者之间的重要之处在于，您可以将表达式链接在一起，而语句则不能被链接。

表达式是产生一个值的任何东西:2 + 2 语句是程序执行的基本“块”之一。

注意，在C语言中，“=”实际上是一个运算符，它做两件事:

返回右边子表达式的值。 将右边子表达式的值复制到左边的变量中。

下面是一段ANSI C语法的摘录。你可以看到C语言没有很多不同种类的语句……程序中的大多数语句都是表达式语句，即结尾带有分号的表达式。

statement
    : labeled_statement
    | compound_statement
    | expression_statement
    | selection_statement
    | iteration_statement
    | jump_statement
    ;

expression_statement
    : ';'
    | expression ';'
    ;

http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/ANSI-C-grammar-y.html

在面向语句的编程语言中，代码块被定义为语句列表。换句话说，语句是可以放入代码块而不会导致语法错误的一段语法。

维基百科对statement这个词的定义类似

在计算机编程中，语句是命令式编程语言的语法单位，它表示要执行的某些操作。用这种语言编写的程序由一个或多个语句的序列组成

注意后一种说法。(尽管在这种情况下，“一个程序”在技术上是错误的，因为C和Java都拒绝一个不包含任何语句的程序。)

维基百科对表达式的定义是

编程语言中的表达式是一个语法实体，可以对其求值以确定其值

然而，这是错误的，因为在Kotlin中，throw new Exception("")是一个表达式，但当求值时，它只是抛出一个异常，从不返回任何值。

在静态类型编程语言中，每个表达式都有一个类型。然而，这个定义在动态类型编程语言中不起作用。

就我个人而言，我将表达式定义为一段语法，它可以由运算符或函数调用组成，以产生更大的表达式。这其实和维基百科对表达式的解释很相似:

它是一个或多个常量、变量、函数和操作符的组合，编程语言解释(根据其特定的优先级和关联规则)并计算产生(在有状态环境中为“返回”)另一个值

但是，问题是在C编程语言中，给定一个函数执行如下内容:

void executeSomething(void){
    return;
}

executessomething()是表达式还是语句?根据我的定义，它是一个语句，因为根据微软C引用语法的定义，

不能以任何方式使用具有void类型的表达式的(不存在的)值，也不能将void表达式(通过隐式或显式转换)转换为除void以外的任何类型

但同一页明确指出，这样的语法是一个表达式。

这些概念的事实基础是:

表达式:一种语法类别，其实例可以求值。

语句:一种语法类别，其实例可能涉及表达式的求值，并且不能保证求值的结果值(如果有的话)可用。

除了最初几十年的FORTRAN上下文之外，公认答案中表达式和语句的定义显然都是错误的:

Expressions can be unvaluated operands. Values are never produced from them. Subexpressions in non-strict evaluations can be definitely unevaluated. Most C-like languages have the so-called short-circuit evaluation rules to conditionally skip some subexpression evaluations not change the final result in spite of the side effects. C and some C-like languages have the notion of unevaluated operand which may be even normatively defined in the language specification. Such constructs are used to avoid the evaluations definitely, so the remained context information (e.g. types or alignment requirements) can be statically distinguished without changing the behavior after the program translation. For example, an expression used as the operand of the sizeof operator is never evaluated. Statements have nothing to do with line constructs. They can do something more than expressions, depending on the language specifications. Modern Fortran, as the direct descendant of the old FORTRAN, has concepts of executable statements and nonexecutable statements. Similarly, C++ defines declarations as the top-level subcategory of a translation unit. A declaration in C++ is a statement. (This is not true in C.) There are also expression-statements like Fortran's executable statements. To the interest of the comparison with expressions, only the "executable" statements matter. But you can't ignore the fact that statements are already generalized to be constructs forming the translation units in such imperative languages. So, as you can see, the definitions of the category vary a lot. The (probably) only remained common property preserved among these languages is that statements are expected to be interpreted in the lexical order (for most users, left-to-right and top-to-bottom).

(BTW，关于C的材料，我想补充一下[引文]，因为我不记得DMR是否有这样的意见。似乎不是，否则就没有理由在C语言的设计中保留功能重复:特别是逗号操作符和语句。)

(以下基本原理并不是对最初问题的直接回应，但我觉得有必要澄清这里已经回答过的一些问题。)

然而，在通用编程语言中，我们是否需要特定类别的“语句”是值得怀疑的:

Statements are not guaranteed to have more semantic capabilities over expressions in usual designs. Many languages have already successfully abandon the notion of statements to get clean, neat and consistent overall designs. In such languages, expressions can do everything old-style statements can do: just drop the unused results when the expressions are evaluated, either by leaving the results explicitly unspecified (e.g. in RnRS Scheme), or having a special value (as a value of a unit type) not producible from normal expression evaluations. The lexical order rules of evaluation of expressions can be replaced by explicit sequence control operator (e.g. begin in Scheme) or syntactic sugar of monadic structures. The lexical order rules of other kinds of "statements" can be derived as syntactic extensions (using hygienic macros, for example) to get the similar syntactic functionality. (And it can actually do more.) On the contrary, statements cannot have such conventional rules, because they don't compose on evaluation: there is just no such common notion of "substatement evaluation". (Even if any, I doubt there can be something much more than copy and paste from existed rules of evaluation of expressions.) Typically, languages preserving statements will also have expressions to express computations, and there is a top-level subcategory of the statements preserved to expression evaluations for that subcategory. For example, C++ has the so-called expression-statement as the subcategory, and uses the discarded-value expression evaluation rules to specify the general cases of full-expression evaluations in such context. Some languages like C# chooses to refine the contexts to simplify the use cases, but it bloats the specification more. For users of programming languages, the significance of statements may confuse them further. The separation of rules of expressions and statements in the languages requires more effort to learn a language. The naive lexical order interpretation hides the more important notion: expression evaluation. (This is probably most problematic over all.) Even the evaluations of full expressions in statements are constraint with the lexical order, subexpressions are not (necessarily). Users should ultimately learn this besides any rules coupled to the statements. (Consider how to make a newbie get the point that ++i + ++i is meaningless in C.) Some languages like Java and C# further constraints the order of evaluations of subexpressions to be permissive of ignorance of evaluation rules. It can be even more problematic. This seems overspecified to users who have already learned the idea of expression evaluation. It also encourages the user community to follow the blurred mental model of the language design. It bloats the language specification even more. It is harmful to optimization by missing the expressiveness of nondeterminism on evaluations, before more complicated primitives are introduced. A few languages like C++ (particularly, C++17) specify more subtle contexts of evaluation rules, as a compromise of the problems above. It bloats the language specification a lot. This goes totally against to simplicity to average users...

为什么是语句?不管怎样，历史已经一团糟了。似乎大多数语言设计者都没有仔细选择。

更糟糕的是，它甚至让一些类型系统爱好者(他们对PL历史不够熟悉)产生了一些误解，认为类型系统必须与操作语义上更基本的规则设计有重要关系。

严肃地说，基于类型的推理在许多情况下并不是那么糟糕，但在这个特殊情况下尤其没有建设性。即使是专家也会把事情搞砸。

For example, someone emphasizes the well-typing nature as the central argument against the traditional treatment of undelimited continuations. Although the conclusion is somewhat reasonable and the insights about composed functions are OK (but still far too naive to the essense), this argument is not sound because it totally ignores the "side channel" approach in practice like _Noreturn any_of_returnable_types (in C11) to encode Falsum. And strictly speaking, an abstract machine with unpredictable state is not identical to "a crashed computer".